Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction

[Bonzo Nododo]

City's scheme was generous in terms of compo offered and the way they allowed claims on their scheme which were not the strongest. City did the decent thing until claimants and their lawyers saw big money before their eyes.
Losers have to pay the costs of the winning side plus the costs of their own legal representatives.
I doubt whether City will go after the losing claimants' assets to recover their costs of defending this action, again doing the decent thing.
But as usual City will get no credit at all for this and in fact will have the usual crap thrown at them. I wish l had a pound for all the times the wind 'technicality' is used in respect of City in the times to come.
I guess the claimants' legal teams will gave got some sort of insurance cover for their fees but l really really hope they get hammered for costs.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

The applicants not happy that City called Bennell as a witness to defend the action. I think if it was clear cut that City were legally responsible for the acts of abuse he carried out, then we would have admitted it and reached a suitable settlement already.

Not with you on this, most corporate entities will do whatever they can to avoid paying out anything more than they have to, just look at Union Carbide and Bhopal there where still court cases floating 30 years later for something that happen in 1984.

In terms of the club calling Bennell I'm sure the way the applicants see it, its their word against his and he is a convicted abuser. Personally, if I was to guess Bennell bigged his connections up in the same way Jeffrey Epstein used Victoria Secret's name when he abused. I'm sure to the victims he did work for Manchester City, to the club he didn't..... that's actually a really hard issue to settle out of court.

 

[Mid Wales blue]

I don't think that would be the case at all, I'd certainly hope not. City set up the compensation scheme and see no reason why the previous settlements on offer would be null and void, as the Club had already offered these poor guys a settlement?

More a case the lawyers probably thought more was obtainable?

Having read through the reports. It seems that these individuals have tried to claim Bennell, was associated with City, from 1980-1985.
This was proved to be wrong, as City, ended all connections with Bennell, 1978-1979, following internal investigations that sadly were kept quite, and swept under the carpet.

It is correct, that following the charges and subsequent convictions of Bennell, City set up an internal investigation along side a victim compensation package.
However it seems these claimants, don’t fall inside the time period that Bennell, had connections to the club.

 

[Bozzie]

As I’ve commented before I just don’t see how they were ever going to get over the line on the causation of loss point, given the tiny numbers of talented kids that go on to make it in the game.

At the time I played alongside Roger Palmer and regularly against Peter Coyne. There was nothing like the obsession with comparisons that exists today but, if ever one lad was destined to succeed it was the hat-trick scoring, England schoolboy from Burnage not the skinny lad from Gt Western St.

 

[stan bowles]

The issue here is that the case was being run by City's insurers and, under the terms of the insurance policy, City will have had no input whatsoever into the strategy for the defence case. It's the same as if you're involved in a car accident and are covered by insurance: the case goes forward in your name, but you otherwise have no say in how your defence is run. You might think that the insurance company is being vile if it runs an aggressive defence and tries to use circumstances that allow it to attack the claimant, but you can do nothing about it.

Aside from that, I note the following from the judgment, the link to which I've posted above (it's numbered para 51):



So strictly, they didn't turn down offers under the scheme. However, they declined to use the scheme, having been advised that they stood to receive more by litigating. I don't know whether the Scheme is still open, but one assumes that, unless they can appeal the judgment successfully, City would pay them what they would have received if they;ds claimed under the Scheme.

As @Exeter Blue I am here says above, apart from anything else, it would be catastrophic PR for the club to act otherwise. However, we can't enter into that kind of settlement with them unless or until they're willing to drop the appeal or the appeal fails. It's not in City's hands.

Have you or anyone else got the names of the applicant and respondent in this case please ?

 

[stan bowles]

Have you or anyone else got the names of the applicant and respondent in this case please ?

Ah it's ok...I found it:

TVZ -v- Manchester City Football Club

 

[wolviedinho]

Firstly, I am sorry to anyone who had the misfortune of encountering this piece of shit.

City offered compensation through a redress scheme which seemingly was declined because the lawyers got greedy.

The insurance company called Bennell, and as far as I understand city were not consulted in any capacity.

The media are not reporting the facts but instead look for a slanderous headline.

This case is based on an individual’s reprehensible actions Not Manchester City who at best have loose links as to actually being his employer.

As I say, I am sorry for those that are suffering but it is not down to the employer. City did not facilitate his behaviour.

Bloodsucking lawyers using the pain and suffering against those who have been abused to make a few pound. The court ruled we as a club are not to blame.

Getting off on a Technicality is bull.

 

[asahartford1]

At the time I played alongside Roger Palmer and regularly against Peter Coyne. There was nothing like the obsession with comparisons that exists today but, if ever one lad was destined to succeed it was the hat-trick scoring, England schoolboy from Burnage not the skinny lad from Gt Western St.

It is a little aside but i also played v Peter Coyne, the first time in a School Manchester cup semi. As we scored he ran past me and head butted me. I never forgot the incident and some time later I was playing for Rochdale reserves v United A. I spotted him before the match and as you know he was the big cheese.
The ball was kicked out by their keeper from a goal kick( fashionable in them days). I took my opportunity well and caught him on the side of his head and he went down. Clearly an accident !

He didn't continue that day, and his career happily went downhill from then. I was a mate of Dave Bennett at the time and played v City when he and Palmer played, liked Dave, he is still an ambassador for Coventry. Him and Gary both had great careers.

 

[Bozzie]

It is a little aside but i also played v Peter Coyne, the first time in a School Manchester cup semi. As we scored he ran past me and head butted me. I never forgot the incident and some time later I was playing for Rochdale reserves v United A. I spotted him before the match and as you know he was the big cheese.
The ball was kicked out by their keeper from a goal kick( fashionable in them days). I took my opportunity well and caught him on the side of his head and he went down. Clearly an accident !

He didn't continue that day, and his career happily went downhill from then. I was a mate of Dave Bennett at the time and played v City when he and Palmer played, liked Dave, he is still an ambassador for Coventry. Him and Gary both had great careers.

From memory I don't think he scored against us (Wilbraham) in any of the games he played. He was always the one who you'd 'let him know you're there' and then he'd disappear. Roger and Dave Bennett were quite the lads about town I'm told, never short of company!! On a similar note, Paul Todd who was City's mascot was a year younger than me, I went back to my junior school to watch them play and Paul Todd was on the opposing team and giving it the 'big I am' until one of the Old Moat kids laid him out with an outstanding left hook, it was very funny!

 

[Corky]

The judge summed up that the abuse took place after B's association with city, even though the association not being employment could be argued as a technicality, the timing is a cast iron fact.

Paragraph 571 suggests an appeal would be hopeless, and probably bluster to try and get something from the redress scheme.

The Plaintiffs knew the risks of going to court to get more money, and the decision to do so was theirs alone.